Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has been one of the most stalwart defenders of widespread NSA surveillance since leaks with information about the programs started seeping out nearly five months ago. Civil libertarians and reformers have been none too pleased with her rhetoric—and they're not going to get any happier after reading the bill she introduced today.

The FISA Improvements Act has already attracted plenty of critics who view it as no improvement at all. In fact, they say, Feinstein's bill would make things much worse. It would actually enshrine the NSA "bulk data" collection programs into law and grant official Congressional approval to widespread surveillance programs that haven't ever received such affirmation before.

Her bill comes on the heels of a competing bill introduced earlier this week that reformers say would be a real step in the right direction. It would outright ban some of the programs that Feinstein is vociferously defending. Dozens of politicians have now stated they're ready to end the controversial "bulk data" programs, including the NSA's practice of keeping a log of every phone call made in the United States. In the House of Representatives, 70 members signed on to a bill proffered by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the sponsor of the original Patriot Act, which would shut the programs down. A companion bill in the Senate has a dozen co-sponsors, as well.

"I'd laugh if I weren't so offended," said Jennifer Granick, of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, in an e-mailed comment about Feinstein's bill. "It legalizes the currently illegal bulk collection of phone records and its language—whether sloppily or intentionally, I don't know—encourages the NSA to conduct bulk collection of other kinds of records under 215, as well as content, without even the bill's purported 'safeguards.'"

The "enhanced criminal penalties" for unauthorized access to data actually criminalizes anyone who accesses a computer "without authorization," noted Ruthann Robson, professor of Law at City University of New York. "While couched in protecting privacy and data, this provision would also further sanction and chill whistleblowers."

"The modest improvements [the bill] makes are far outweighed by the damage it does to civil liberties,” said Greg Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Capitol Hill showdown brewing on surveillance

In introducing the bill, Feinstein reiterated there's essentially nothing wrong with the current situation. "The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

Feinstein's statements about the bill make it sound reform-ish, but when closely read, it mainly constitutes re-iterations of the status quo. For instance, the bill "prohibits the bulk collection of the content of communications under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act" (no emphasis in original). The NSA and its defenders, including Feinstein and President Barack Obama, have already stated repeatedly that they don't gather content.

The legislation would also "prohibit the collection of bulk communication records under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act except under specific procedures and restrictions set forth in the bill." In other words, it forbids the collection of data unless it's collected in a way that the intelligence committee approves of—essentially the same thing that's been happening for years.

The bill includes other safeguards and reporting requirements, most of which are already in place, such as limiting the number of contacts or "hops" that an analyst can get when querying bulk communications.

The Senate Intelligence Committee passed the bill out of committee on an 11-4 vote earlier today—a vote held in a secret, closed session.

There seems to be a showdown brewing between surveillance hawks and reformers in Congress. Both sides cross party lines in unexpected ways, and it isn't clear which side will prevail. Sensenbrenner's bill has become quickly popular, yet the Senate Intelligence Committee clearly has a strong majority in favor of these programs. Similarly, when General Keith Alexander and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper came to Congress for a hearing on Tuesday, top members of the House Intelligence Committee mostly showed support for their actions. The recent tone suggests that intelligence committees in both houses may be out of step with the sentiment elsewhere in Congress.

127 Reader Comments

Contrary to her constant assurances, Senator Palpatine... err, Senator Feinstein is not interested in the safety of you, me or any other American who isn't firmly part of the current power structure. This is evidenced by her ongoing support not just of the NSA, but of a plethora of legislation (SOPA, PIPA, TPP) that is specifically and purposefully designed to undermine the ability of people to organize while shifting control of the Internet to a select and small group of very powerful people. The fact that she has the gall to, against public opinion, work to codify the current practices of the surveillance state says a lot about how little she or anyone who is supposed to be overseeing these things actually cares what any of their constituents think.

Finally, the NSA is supposed to spy on people , that's the job of any intelligence agency. If you say that this bill enables illegal activities , i am not going to contradict you, but i feel skeptical about that claim.

I'm not going to argue about Snowden, but I wanted to address this.

First of all, the NSA's mandate is foreign intelligence and counter intelligence. To spy on a US citizen, they still have to get approval from a FISA court, which is why their mass data project is illegal; they'd need a warrant on EVERY American citizen whose records they've grabbed.

The 4th Amendment was written specifically because the British Crown could go into your house and search it at any time. It was written to protect us from that kind of abuse. And there are good and modern reasons to still need it: when Nixon was President, he abused the power of the FBI to spy on people on his infamous "enemies list," which included folks like

Nixon wanted to punish his enemies with tax audits and law enforcement harassment, and blackmail. The FISA court was established, in part, as a response to some of the things Nixon tried. His people burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel because they thought they were above the law.

I oppose the NSA's actions because it is all too easy for something like that to happen again.

"The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

Californians, not this this will make any significant difference, but PLEASE light her ass up. Call all of her offices and tell the staff that she is unequivocally wrong. Then, vote her out of office next year.

"The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

I only said civil libertarians had the right idea about privacy. I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated topics.

...and I believe Ron "state's rights" Paul is a Confederate, not a libertarian.

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

I only said civil libertarians had the right idea about privacy. I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated topics.

...and I believe Ron "state's rights" Paul is a Confederate, not a libertarian.

Yeah, they managed to get one thing right. It's just too bad that they have so many other horrible, horrible campaign promises that I cannot in good conscience vote for them. Jim Wheeler, a state legislator of Nevada says he'd vote to bring back slavery. But don't tread on him, taxes are the real slavery.

I'd like to think enough people will wake up and voter her out of office next time around. But after 22 years in office, it's unlikely that will happen anytime soon. I can't recall the exact numbers but something like 80% of the time the person who has the most campaign money wins election. The numbers go up even higher if it's someone who's been in office for a long time. Combine those two factors and the odds of her actually losing are pretty slim. We have to figure out a way to change this somehow.

I'd like to think enough people will wake up and voter her out of office next time around. But after 22 years in office, it's unlikely that will happen anytime soon. I can't recall the exact numbers but something like 80% of the time the person who has the most campaign money wins election. The numbers go up even higher if it's someone who's been in office for a long time. Combine those two factors and the odds of her actually losing are pretty slim. We have to figure out a way to change this somehow.

California just recently moved to a top-two primary system. Voters can vote for whoever, regardless of party, and the two people getting the most votes in the primary (no matter which party they're in) will be against each other in the general.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the next senate races there.

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

I only said civil libertarians had the right idea about privacy. I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated topics.

...and I believe Ron "state's rights" Paul is a Confederate, not a libertarian.

The one thing we have learned from the Snowden docs is that this issue is so important, yet complex, it is completely non-partisan. The real leaders from every party and philosophy have come out strongly against what the NSA has been doing - some were trying to warn us even before the Snowden docs came out.

I would say this issue can be a bar by which we can see behind the curtain and vote accordingly. Finally, a non-partisan litmus test for office.

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

I only said civil libertarians had the right idea about privacy. I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated topics.

...and I believe Ron "state's rights" Paul is a Confederate, not a libertarian.

Yeah, they managed to get one thing right. It's just too bad that they have so many other horrible, horrible campaign promises that I cannot in good conscience vote for them. Jim Wheeler, a state legislator of Nevada says he'd vote to bring back slavery. But don't tread on him, taxes are the real slavery.

I haven't heard about this guy, but it's very interesting that a 'civil libertarian' would remove all civil liberties from a group of people. Again feels like confederates are hijacking libertarianism.

Just want to chime in on the Republican/Democrat issue and say that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Obama on this issue.

Indeed only civil libertarians (with a smattering of dems and repubs) have the right idea.

You mean the Ron Paul crowd, the Objectivists who think the free market rules, all government should be abolished, no entitlements for anyone of dark skin, public regulation should go out the window and the strongest should survive? Didn't we just play a round of that with the Shutdown?

I only said civil libertarians had the right idea about privacy. I'm not sure why you are bringing up unrelated topics.

...and I believe Ron "state's rights" Paul is a Confederate, not a libertarian.

The one thing we have learned from the Snowden docs is that this issue is so important, yet complex, it is completely non-partisan? The real leaders from every party and philosophy have come out strongly against what the NSA has been doing - some were trying to warn us even before the Snowden docs came out.

I would say this issue can be a bar by which we can see behind the curtain and vote accordingly. Finally, a non-partisan litmus test for office.

If the U.S. wasn't spiraling into fascism fast enough already, all it's going to take is a population of apathetic and lazy people to allow the government to not only get away with this NSA bullshit, but also to spin the "remedy" into something worse than the original problem.

Sorry about the poor writing skills and lack of wit, but this comes to mind:

U.S. Government: "Here, buy this snake oil to cure you of the ills of the snake oil I already sold you."Citizens: Gulp. glurk.Narrator: repeat.

On the other hand, maybe there really are that many sheep in the U.S. and some form of ultra-paternalistic totalitarian government is really the best thing for them. It's so hard not to be overwhelmed with cynicism because all of what is going on seems so fantastic and unreal.

On the other hand, maybe there really are that many sheep in the U.S. and some form of ultra-paternalistic totalitarian government is really the best thing for them. It's so hard not to be overwhelmed with cynicism because all of what is going on seems so fantastic and unreal.

Maybe Americans need their goverment to do the kind of damage to them that their government has done to the rest of the world before they wake up and smell the napalm, feel the jackboots, fear the drones, etc.

Sen. Feinstein is one of the few senators with a "safe district." Even with CA's top two primary, no democrat with any political ambition is allowed to touch her without being punished by the party and the Republican party here is so small that the GOP National committee refused to spend any money on the 2012 race. Her November oponent has 12% name recognition on election day and made Rand Paul look like reasonable and moderate. It will be 2018 before she has to face California voters again and it is unlikely even then that anyone will make a serious run against her.

I have written her more then once asking for her support for policy that help the technology industry after all she represents the people of silicon valley (the SOPA/PIPA being the most recent). Never gotten anything back but a form letter telling me how much she cares about protecting America's technology infrastructure from scammers and terrorists. Its like talking to a brick wall.

Maybe this will haunt her in 2018. I'd love to see the valley put up a moderate republican or even a tech savvy democrat who could take her on, but I don't think it is very likely.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Don't think so. The “Orwellian” pull is strong for whoever is in power. Atypical would be if her bill passes, or if Dems weren't in the WH right now.

It does not matter who, or what party is in the WH right now. This shredding of the Constitution, err, policy, has been going on for decades. Got worse under Bush-Cheney. Continued under Obama.

Such power grabs, representing huge expenditures of money every year over decades, cannot be easily undone. It would take some sort of truly huge protest movement, resulting in supporters such as Feinstein being voted out of office, or recalled. But surprisingly, we have seen nothing like this.

"The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight, and I believe it contributes to our national security," she said. "But more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place."

I urge all Californian voters to call her office and have nice, long, polite but pointed conversations with her staff members about these issues. Also write to her office. It is important to go on record so that disagreement is registered. Those people live in a bubble and they need to know that the bubble is, in fact, small. Make her come up with a new form letter, at the very least.

Is it really so surprising that the intelligence and security committees are in favor of more power for the intelligence and security community?

Well, they're supposed to be a check on the Executive branch's powers, so, a little, yeah.

Err, they're part of the Executive branch... Congress and the Judicial are supposed to be checking them, not doing whatever Feinstein's doing to them...

The Intelligence Committee that Feinstein is on is not a part of the Executive, which is what I and the original quote refer to. They are giving more power to the NSA and other intelligence agencies despite them theoretically being a check on the Executive's power.

Is it really so surprising that the intelligence and security committees are in favor of more power for the intelligence and security community?

Well, they're supposed to be a check on the Executive branch's powers, so, a little, yeah.

Err, they're part of the Executive branch... Congress and the Judicial are supposed to be checking them, not doing whatever Feinstein's doing to them...

The Intelligence Committee that Feinstein is on is not a part of the Executive, which is what I and the original quote refer to. They are giving more power to the NSA and other intelligence agencies despite them theoretically being a check on the Executive's power.

That makes more sense. I was looking at the last subject of the sentence you were replying to and didn't make the connection you were talking about the committees.

I'd like to think enough people will wake up and voter her out of office next time around. But after 22 years in office, it's unlikely that will happen anytime soon. I can't recall the exact numbers but something like 80% of the time the person who has the most campaign money wins election. The numbers go up even higher if it's someone who's been in office for a long time. Combine those two factors and the odds of her actually losing are pretty slim. We have to figure out a way to change this somehow.

California just recently moved to a top-two primary system. Voters can vote for whoever, regardless of party, and the two people getting the most votes in the primary (no matter which party they're in) will be against each other in the general.

It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the next senate races there.

i think this is a great idea. as someone else pointed out though, its political suicide for another democrate to legitmately run against her without running afoul of their own party. in the area shes from republicans have all but given up and spend very little money or effort to run against her because its viewed as a waste of money.

in politics were connections are everything, few fellow democrates want to run against her or support somene else when she has 22 years of high level connections in washington. many are willing to accept a loss on the NSA issue in order to use her connections for other politcal goals.

i think she is a great example of why we should consider term limits in congress. even with voters in her own party disagreeing with her on this issue its very unlikely anyone else can match the political support and finincal support she has.

Does it seem atypical that a democrat senator is more Orwellian than a republican?

Er not really.

Democrats are typically heavy on the monitor and control side.

This isn't to say Republicans aren't similar but this is an area where libertarians are champions in terms of good policy.

Oh really? It's the Democrats? Refresh your memory regarding TIA, which after being shot down was secretly and illegally pushed through by the Bush-Cheney administration. Such executive power grabs are very hard to undo.

You should read "Subversives," by Seth Rosenfeld. It painstakingly documents the pressure of FBI surveilance and Reagan's cooperation with it, and the benefits he reaped from a grateful J. Edgar Hoover.

The book was made possible by careful FOIA requests filed by a diligent reporter over a period of twenty years. It is not off topic to consider such governmental activities at the present moment. "For What it's Worth."

It was said a long time ago, and it still remains true: The US does not have two political parties, it has two wings of one business party. It is true that the Democratic party has become the Republican party of the 1970's and the Republican party has become the party of billionaire boot-licking (Koch, Adelson, Murdock), but the observation still stands.

Needless to say, spying on everyone, everywhere, all of the time requires some serious computer and networking hardware. Hello Silicon Valley, this is the NSA calling, can we order ten million of your most profitable units? Senator Feinstein sends her regards!

Feinstein is total garbage, but this is nothing new or even different. The Democrats have Wyden and maybe Warren to make them look slightly respectable in the Senate. The Republicans have exactly no one in the upper house; anyone pinning hopes on Rand Paul has been thoroughly disabused of their preconceptions by now.

Voters here in CA must find an alternative to Feinstein, but it won't be among the Republicans. The long, bigoted shadow of Pete Wilson lingers still, sullying the campaigns of even the most ineffectual milquetoast tech bubblers (Fiorina, Whitman) trying to purchase power wholesale. Unfortunately, Cali reactionaries make up for their tiny numbers with excessive bellicosity and belligerence, striking even by Republican standards.

Anyone for Democratic Socialism? The Norwegian standard of living is looking pretty good! Those German data protection laws sound mighty fine relative to this crap!

i think she is a great example of why we should consider term limits in congress. even with voters in her own party disagreeing with her on this issue its very unlikely anyone else can match the political support and finincal support she has.

Old Greeks had a system where people where not voted into parliament but were chosen by random. This system may sound stupid at the first place but it would solve quite many problems related to current political system (and likely create some new ones that we can not see till in practice).

OF COURSE SHE'D DO THIS. She's just gotten to that age where she thinks everyone needs to be spied on, kids need to stay off her porch, and most people now-a-days are a treacherous hooligans unlike people back in her day. I don't think she can do more to fit a crazy old spy-on-the-neighbors lady archetype. She was more upset the NSA spied of foreigners (the explicit job of the NSA) than she was about them spying on americans (which the NSA has previously been explicitly forbidden to do without lots of paperwork). Someone just give her a cat and close her blinds please.

Well put!18 is considered the age at which people get reasonable enough for their vote to matter; there really should be a counterpart to it.

Indeed a bill is needed to calm down the hysteria created by the media. More transparency and oversight would be a good thing anyways if well implemented.

By the way, Snowden already got a job for a big and important Russian 'website'. He is doing well , having a good life , protected by Russia and is treated like a celebrity by US adversaries . Cheers!

This bill is terrible because it legalizes the NSA's completely illegal spying on everyone everywhere while Feinstein pretends that it is doing exactly the opposite, which should itself be enough to get her voted out of office.

Fortunately for Feinstein, her constituents are dupes who will just keep voting her in no matter what.